Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV05161, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 23STCV05161 Hearing Date: March 4, 2024 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Consolidate for All Purposes
Moving Party: Frederic Vuong
Resp. Party: None
The Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.
BACKGROUND:
On March 8, 2023, County of Los Angeles (“County”) filed Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-001, Complaint—Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death against Ronilo Felicitas Quidolit (“Quidolit”).
On March 23, 2023, County filed its First Amended Complaint (FAC).
On June 5, 2023, Quidolit filed: (1) Answer to the FAC; and (2) Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-002, Cross-Complaint—Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death against Frederic Vuong (“Vuong”), Temple City Auto Repair, Becker Tire, and Norman Anpree (“Anpree”).
On June 27, 2023, Vuong filed Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-003, Answer—Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death.
On July 12, 2023, the Court found related cases 23STCV03883, 23STCV05161, 23STCV06678, and 23STCV06773. The Court designated 23STCV03883 as the lead case.
On December 15, 2023, Vuong filed Motion to Consolidate for All Purposes Cases Nos.: 23STCV03883; 23ZSTCV05161; 23STCV06773; and 23STCV06678 (“Motion to Consolidate”).
On January 29, 2024, all four cases were transferred to Department 34.
On February 9 and 14, 2024, peremptory challenges were filed and accepted on cases 23STCV03883 and 23STCV06678, respectively.
On February 21 and 23, 2024, cases 23STCV03883 and 23STCV06678, respectively, were unrelated from cases 23STCV05161 and 23STCV06773.
ANALYSIS:
I. Legal Standard
“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)
“A notice of motion to consolidate must:
“(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;
“(B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and
“(C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(A)–(C).)
“The motion to consolidate:
“(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case;
“(B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and
“(C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2)(A)–(C).)
“An order granting or denying all or part of a motion to consolidate must be filed in each case sought to be consolidated. . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(c).)
II. Discussion
Vuong moves the Court to consolidate cases 23STCV03883, 23STCV05161, 23STCV06678, and 23STCV06773. (Motion to Consolidate, p. 3:13–19.)
Considering that two of these cases have recently been unrelated and been sent to two different departments, consolidation of all four cases is inappropriate. Thus, the Motion to Consolidate must be denied.
III. Conclusion
The Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.